aligning science inquiry - lagrange collegehome.lagrange.edu/educate/advanced programs/eds...

STRATEGIES FOR UTILIZING INQUIRY

IN THE SECONDARY SCIENCE CLASSROOM

Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this project is my own or was done in collaboration with my Advisor. This project does not include

proprietary or classified information.

Susan Haak Hinson

Certificate of Approval

______________________________

Donald R. Livingston, Ed. D.Associate Professor and Co-Project AdvisorEducation Department

, 12/11/10,

Add Dr. Sharon as Co-Thesis Advisor

Strategies for Inquiry ii

STRATEGIES FOR UTILIZING INQUIRY

IN THE SECONDARY SCIENCE CLASSROOM

A working project submitted

by

Susan Haak Hinson

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

SPECIALIST IN EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia’

November 15, 2010

Strategies for Inquiry iii

Abstract

Strategies for Inquiry iv

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………..………………………………………….……….iii

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………….…iv

List of Table/s/…………………………………………………….……………………..v

Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………….………1 Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………..1 Significance of the Problem……………………………………………………..2 Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks……………………………………….3Focus Questions………………………………………………………………...6Overview of Methodology………………………….…………………………..7Human as Researcher……………………….…………………………………..7

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature…………………………………….........................8

Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………………19Research Design……………………………………………………………….19Setting…………………………………………………………………………20Sample/Subjects/Participants………………………………………….………20 Procedures and Data Collection Methods…………………………………….21

Chapter 4: Results……………………………………………………………………….

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results…………………………………………Analysis………………………………………………………………………… Discussion…………………………….………………………………………...Implications……………….…………………………………………………….Impact on Student Learning…………………………………………………….Recommendations for Future Research.…………………………......................

References………………………………………………………………………………

Appendixes……………………………………………………………………………..

Strategies for Inquiry v

List of Tables

Tables

Table 3.1 Data Shell..………………………………………………………………….22Table 3.2 Rubric for Question Assessment……………………………………………23

Figures

Table 4.1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the problem

Since the space race of the 1960s, the field of science has received more

recognition as a body of knowledge essential to the repertoire of a well-educated

individual. Indeed, science savvy provides a basis on which to build not only a career, but

an informed voting citizen; even a healthy family. In keeping with the emerging

importance of science, Joseph Schwab, science scholar, teacher and advocate for

curriculum reform, expressed during this decade the need for science education to be

more than rote memorization of facts. He advocated for science education to include the

questioning and experimentation that embody the practicing scientist. This inquiry-based

method of teaching science has been “appealing and at the same time very difficult to

implement in real classrooms” (Wallace & Kang, 2004, p. 939).

This approach to science education may qualify as constructivist. Students

construct or discover their own understanding of science instead of merely digesting

information that has been fed to them (Saunders, 1992). During the 1980s, Piagetian

education models were gradually replaced with other constructivist methods (Hofstein &

Lunetta, 2002). Constructivism in science is most obviously utilized in the laboratory;

moreover it is the science laboratory that exemplifies discovery. Unfortunately, evidence

suggests that as recently as the late 1990s, the potential for labs to develop science skills

and concepts has yet to be realized (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2002). Hofstein and Lunetta

(2002) report that opportunities for the reflection, feedback and modification required for

inquiry labs do not exist in most schools in the United States or in other countries.

Strategies for Inquiry 2

Inquiry strategies require the investment of time, supplies and equipment.

Teachers must take on multifaceted and flexible roles as they guide instead of direct

learning. Meticulous planning is required for a safe, but investigative, environment.

Paramount in such constructivist models is a time investment that would appear to

conflict with the need to teach curricula mandated by individual states. In addition, other

inhibiting factors include large class sizes, laboratory availability and the perceived foci

of external exams (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2002).

Further studies “…should take place in classrooms where teachers are currently

implementing inquiry within the constraints of school culture…” (Wallace & Kang,

2003, p. 959). In order to identify the most efficient as well as effective means of

teaching scientific inquiry, educators must conduct more research on specific school

laboratory experiences (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2002). The focus of this investigation is to

examine ways to improve the efficacy of science inquiry in the classroom, in particular,

to establish a positive relationship between experienced based learning and higher order

thinking and questioning skills.

Significance of the Problem

The Georgia Department of Education’s Georgia Performance Standards, (GPS)

designates in the Co-Requisite-Characteristics of Science, Habits of Mind SCSh1 through

SCSh8, that students develop laboratory related skills. For GPS SCSh3b, students are

required to develop procedures to solve scientific problems, and specifically, for GPS

SCSh8, to engage in the process of scientific inquiry. It is important to note, however,

that developing scientific understanding from practical experiences (lab experiments) is a


very complex process (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2002). It is also a process that requires

research, prediction, investigation, reflection, revision, and design, all in addition to the

experimentation. These processes present huge obstacles to teachers. Recently, much

emphasis has been placed on educators to produce students who are able to pass the

content standard tests. There is currently no measurement instrument in the State of

Georgia for open-ended inquiry related questions that reveal students’ understanding of

the nature of science. Additionally, the time investment required to accomplish inquiry

labs appears to interfere with the ability to cover the content standards. According to

Saunders (1992), “…a vast majority of science programs are textbook driven and thus

often fail to capitalize upon more effective instructional practices....” (p. 136). More

recently, according to Deters (2005), “of the 571 responses to the online survey from high

school chemistry teachers all over the U.S., 45.5% indicated that they did not use inquiry

labs in their classrooms” (p. 1178).

Inquiry must be utilized if students are to understand, appreciate and, perhaps,

embrace science. With a revived science curriculum, whereby students move beyond the

memorization of facts and immerse themselves in the discovery of the scientific world,

teachers may awaken more knowledgeable, more curious and perhaps more responsible

learners.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

This study closely aligns with Tenet 2: Exemplary Professional Teaching

Practices of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2007) Conceptual

Framework. The framework is designed in conjunction with LaGrange College’s


mission “to inspire the soul and challenge the mind in a caring and ethical community”

(LaGrange College Education Department, 2007, p. 2). Tenet 2 focuses on teachers’

professional skills. The constructivist approach of inquiry-based learning requires

extensive preparation, exceptional teaching skills and creative approaches to assessment.

It also advocates “…that learners be active participants in the learning process”

(LaGrange College Education Department, 2007, p. 5). This tenet also prescribes

collaboration and differentiation as avenues for students to utilize their preferred learning

styles and advocates an iterative process of reflection and revision in order to elevate and

encourage their future learning (LaGrange College Education Department, 2007). Active

cognitive involvement and engagement in cognitive activities, such as developing

alternative explanations and designing further investigations, are integral to the

constructivist model (Saunders, 1992).

Under Tenet 2 of the Conceptual Framework, Competency Cluster 2.1: Planning

Skills, adequate planning is emphasized as essential to insuring student engagement,

achievement and appropriate behavior (LaGrange College Education Department, 2007).

Planning for science inquiry labs frequently includes grouping the students. Since this

design involves students composing their own procedures or developing their own

processes, teachers must construct the environment to be successful as well as safe.

Teachers must consider the zone of proximal development (ZPD). As defined by

Vygotsky in 1978, ZPD described the difference between what a student could perform

individually and what that student could perform with assistance. To maximize student

achievement and insure that the activity is linked to the content, the instructor must

consider the ZPD when designing the complexity of the activity.


Competency Cluster 2.2: Instructional Skills expresses the importance of using

constructivist approaches to achieve conceptual understanding (LaGrange College

Education Department, 2007). Since inquiry activities are inherently student focused

instead of teacher focused, teachers guide learning instead of directing it. This requires

that teachers predict student pitfalls and problems and resist the desire to simply give

them the answers. The process is also initially frustrating for students so the teacher must

be prepared to encourage and reassure them.

This study aligns with the requirements of certain national standards as well as the

Georgia Framework for Teaching. Proposition 2 of the National Council for

Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) 2000 Standard1 for Initial Programs:

Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students

delineates the need for teachers to understand how students receive and process concepts

specifically related to the curriculum content. Element 1C: Professional and Pedagogical

Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates from the elements of NCATE 2000

Standard 1 for Initial Programs also designates that teachers need to develop multiple

strategies to convey content. Many science teachers may require professional

development in this area since “…without a firm understanding of how scientists work,

teachers may be inhibited to involve students in activities that explore questioning,

deviate from exact procedures, interpret data, or obtain a variety of explanations for the

phenomena” (Wallace & Kang, 2004, p. 940).

LaGrange College Education Department’s (2007) Conceptual Frameworks’s

Competency Cluster 2.3: Assessment Skills advocates self assessment and reflection as a

means of empowering students to direct and frame personal learning goals. Student self


assessment, reflection and revision are key aspects to inquiry. As suggested in the

NCATE 2000 standard for Initial Programs Element 1D Student Learning for Teacher

Candidates and NBPTS Core Propositions for Experienced Teachers Proposition 3:

Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning, assessment of

student learning provides a measure of curriculum effectiveness and reveals areas of

instruction that need refinement. Teachers must constantly adjust the level of inquiry in

order to achieve a balance between effective learning and an effective use of available

time.

Focus Questions

The intent of this study is to encourage teachers to increase their utilization of

constructivist, performance tasks by revealing their benefit to science literacy. The

investigation may reveal inroads for implementing these tasks and advocates integrating

them into the lesson in order to convey the standards rather than using them at the end of

the lesson for enhancement of the standard. In connection with this approach, questioning

must be fostered. There is little doubt that the roots of natural science are entrenched in

seeking answers to questions about the natural world. Currently, science education

measures students’ ability to answer questions but rarely measures student’s ability to

formulate science questions. In looking forward to developing a more sophisticated

populace, perhaps teachers should reflect on Plutarch (circa 100), “The mind is not a

vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled” (BrainyQuote.com. p. 161,334).

Three focus questions will be addressed in this study. The first question examines

whether students’ ability to develop better scientific questions can be improved through


the use of experiential inquiry techniques. It is recognized that questioning in science is

indicative of science literacy. The second question explores how receptive teachers and

students are to this methodology. The third and final question reveals some strategies for

making inquiry activities more widely used in secondary science classrooms.

Overview of Methodology

This comparative education study was conducted at a rural high school. Students’

ability to generate scientific questions was regarded as representative of their level of

scientific literacy. Student improvement, as a result of the strategies utilized, has been

based on quantitative pre-test and post-test data. These data were examined with

statistical methods including tests between means of different groups. Data in the form

of surveys and interviews were used to explore student/teacher acceptance of the inquiry

strategies. Statistical methods for analyzing these data included Chi-Square and coding

responses for themes. Additionally, information gathered from interviews of school

personnel has helped identify the most effective strategies for implementing inquiry in

the classroom.

Human as researcher

With fourteen years of industry experience, I entered the field of secondary

education through Georgia’s Teacher Alternative Preparation Program (TAPP). During

my seven years as an educator, I have become increasingly aware of what little

knowledge I am able to impart to my high school science students through a standard

lecture/test format. I have embraced an experiential learning format in my teaching for a


number of reasons. Having been a participant in an inquiry-based learning project

directed by Anil Banerjee, Ph.D., chemistry professor at Columbus State University, we

investigated the advantages of well-planned experiential learning. Combining an

engineering background (Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Auburn

University, 1984) with business training (Master of Business Administration from

LaGrange College, 1994) and business experience primarily as a process engineer

(Milliken & Co., Hughes Georgia Inc., Raytheon Corporation), I brought both an

informed research and experience-based opinion to the design and analysis of this study.


CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Focus Question 1: Can Students’ ability to develop better scientific questions be improved through the use of experiential inquiry

techniques?

In recent decades, science education research has uncovered different perspectives on

how learning occurs. As a result; new insights in the cognitive process of meaningful learning has

dramatically affected pedagogy. Constructivist theory suggests that meaning is constructed when

the learner’s mind attempts to make sense of external stimuli. This model advocates that learning

is an active rather than passive process and pedagogical experts have responded with

recommendations for authentic practices. Authentic practices are intended to involve students in

the real purpose of what they are doing while requiring them to extend their learning as part of

the process (Prins, et al, 2008). During experience based learning, meaning is constructed in the

presence of the learner’s pre-existing knowledge. Furthermore this prior knowledge or set of

beliefs may improve or impede the intended learning. Whatever the outcome, it is indicated that

meaningful learning does not occur in the traditional teacher centered, lecture format (Saunders,

1992).

In light of the previous argument, it would follow that hands on experienced based

learning would have a positive effect on the construction of meaning and provide the best

opportunity for correcting a student’s previous misconceptions. Laboratory investigation has been

an instinctive part of science instruction since its inception. Robert Boyle and others receive

credit in our textbooks as having founded scientific fact in experimentation. It is the scientific

investigation, which has transformed humanities’ curiosity about its surroundings, into the

curriculum science educators are attempting to convey. Unfortunately, according to Elliott,

Stewart and Lagowski, “Precious little direct evidence exists that such instruction provides a

, 12/11/10,

Italics yours?

, 12/11/10,

List all authors if used 1st time


useful function in the way(s) students learn chemistry.” (2008, p. 145) As long ago as the early

1800s, science was taught in England and the colonies, as an apprenticeship. This style of

instruction implemented an inquiry process, as these students not only gained knowledge and

proficiency, but an understanding about the investigative process essential to the development of

new discoveries. Centuries later, the body of knowledge to impart to students had become so

immense that the lecture format was justified as a much more efficient means of conveying that

knowledge. In fact “some chemists now believe that laboratory instruction in chemistry has been

rendered irrelevant” (Elliott, Stewart & Lagowski, 2008, p. 147).

Undergraduate programs in chemistry are not completely devoid of the laboratory

experience today. The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports the use of research

equipment in small colleges and universities and values the old, initial investigative approach for

knowledge acquisition. At Purdue University the NSF supports the Center for Authentic Science

Practice in Education (CASPIE) whose goal is to mainstream research experiences in the first and

second year curriculum. Many institutions have implemented apprenticeship programs whereby

the faculty work with each student to engage them in the research experience. A pedagogical

method has emerged in this instructional environment referred to as the Cognitive Apprenticeship

Theory. It describes a learning strategy that intertwines the entry level curriculum with the deep

learning experience of the laboratory (Elliott, Stewart & Lagowski, 2008).

Labs that are too structured and rigorously teacher directed; do not actively engage the

learner in deep learning. “It is important to note that not all laboratory activities are equally

effective in bringing about meaningful learning.” (Saunders, 1992, p. 138). When properly

designed, inquiry laboratories engage students in acquisition of the content and provide an avenue

for understanding the nature of science, (Hofstein, et al, 2005). In fact, the goal of inquiry

learning is improved critical thinking (Sadeh & Zion, 2009).

, 12/11/10,

List all authors if used 1st time

, 12/11/10,

Naked quote


The search for improved critical thinking at the post secondary level is requested by G.

Wayne Clough, Ph.D., the president of Georgia’s Institute of Technology. He describes

several initiatives that are needed in science education. He calls for a

need to develop not only better problem solvers but ones that are

more interested in developing technologies instead of just utilizing

them. He states that today’s teenagers have an over-confidence in

their problem solving skills and college professors are dissatisfied with

their students’ initial performances. Students should not only become

proficient in their areas of study, but must enhance their sustainability

with communication skills, leadership skills, flexibility and

interdisciplinary skills (Clough, 2008). In response to such requests at

the college level and above, the America Competes Act proposes increasing

funding for undergraduate programs that combine degrees in math or science with a

teaching certificate. The act was formulated after a congressional conclusion that

fostering degrees in math and science should begin in high school. The alignment of

field of study with certification is important since it is designated that nationally two

thirds of high school chemistry and physics teachers lack degrees or certifications for

those specific fields. The act falls short of the scope of funding necessary to be effective,

and arguably will do little to increase the number of graduating American scientists and

mathematicians (Brainard, 2007).

Investigating the disparity between Asian universities and

American universities in terms of science, technology, engineering and

math (STEM) degrees, many place the blame on a lack of ambition


among American students. It seems that students these days lack a

passion for science, and many are seeking ways to ignite interest in

STEM fields. Cordova, chancellor of the University of California

suggests that we instead, examine obstacles to student success. There

is a gap in our support system for diverse students who fall short of

negotiating large “gatekeeper” courses and give up, or are failed out,

before experiencing those that interest them. Among the suggestions

for nurturing all students, and specifically those from disadvantaged

backgrounds, include more faculty contact, modifications in the way

large classes are taught, including the use of technology, collaborative

grouping, and interpersonal activities. (Cordova, 2006) “Inquiry-

oriented teaching may be especially valuable for many underserved

and underrepresented populations,” according to Haury (1993, p.3). For

many students it may be lack of appeal, rather than lack of ambition to pursue

engineering careers, since so many opportunities have moved overseas. And while Asian

countries such as China are graduating large numbers of science and engineering

students, factors affecting economic innovation such as creativity and independent

thinking are not fostered by Chinese educators (Brainard, 2007).

Three of Cordova’s recommendations refer to learning in a social

context. The indication that large classes be modified to utilize

collaborative grouping, and capitalize on interpersonal activities,

suggests that construction of meaning within the mind of the learner is

not only impacted by prior knowledge, but by the culture of the

, 12/11/10,

Naked quote


learning environment. Practical work in the science classroom is most

often carried out with collaborative groups. In order for group work to

be successful, students must actively participate in the activity and

assume responsibility for the learning. Vygotsky (1978) advocated that

a person’s ability to be successful in this endeavor varies according to

their ability to utilize physical and symbolic social instruments. This

capacity for accomplishment reflects a learner’s zone of proximal

development (ZPD). If we consider the collective ZPDs of the students

within a group, in conjunction with the complexity of the task, ZPDs

become unique to each situation. (Regosa & Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2007)

Achieving science literacy for all students has become a central focus for educators world-wide.

The target population is not only those who will eventually embark on a career in the sciences but also all citizens. As such, they will often find themselves in situations in which they will need to ask critical questions and seek answers upon which they will need to make a valid decision. Thus the development of students’ ability to ask questions should be seen as an important component of scientific literacy…(Hofstein et al, 2005, p.802)

Education and educators seem focused almost entirely on asking students to answer

questions rather than having them formulate questions. Teachers practicing learning focused

strategies must have their “Essential Questions” posted in their classrooms. Students answer

questions on homework, following classroom activities, on quizzes and during exams. Of course

teachers do ask at the end of the lesson, “Does anyone have any questions?" Questions may be

solicited during a review, prior to the exam and so on. The time devoted to students’ generation

of questions is very limited. After a brief wait time with no questions, frequently the next step in

the lesson begins – on to a new concept. With what frequency do students think: I don’t

understand enough about the new information to be able to ask questions?


According to Middlecamp and Nickel (2005), teachers refrain from allowing too many

questions since it is perceived to be an ineffective use of time, may reveal the instructors lack of

knowledge, or the classroom environment may not seem conducive to question generation. And

what is the protocol when a student does respond with a random, off-the-subject, question. What

is the fine line that teachers follow as they choose to answer that question, veer from the lesson

plan and foster curiosity or; tactfully bring the lesson back into focus and proceed with the

planned lesson. Questioning has multiple agendas, and those agendas are not solely divined by

linguistics alone. According to Middlecamp and Nickel (2005):

1. “ Questions are not necessarily objective or neutral (their content depends on who is asking them).

2. The format of the question is not neutral either (how you ask something determines what you can learn).

3. Groups of people often develop a better set of questions than individuals (an inherent rationale for group diversity).

4. By their content and form, the questions asked by scientists can limit what is learned in a scientific investigation” (p. 1181).

According to Chin and Osborne, (2010) conflict that arises as a result of inconsistencies between

prior knowledge and experience, promotes student questioning. This cognitive discourse provides

an opportunity for students to articulate their current understanding as they attempt to resolve

their puzzlement. Occasionally, and most rewardingly, students arrive at their own correct answer

as a result of this process. When students raise questions, they have taken the first step in

accepting responsibility for the learning. In fact feminine pedagogies assert that “learners are

more likely to have a personal interest in the questions they raise.” (Middlecamp & Nickel, p.

1185, 2005). When strategically solicited, student generated questions can even embark the class

on the intended lesson.

Focus Question 2: How receptive are teachers and students to this methodology?

Earlier it was stated that practical work (science labs and activities) may not be effective

if they are too structured. Certainly there are occasions when the complexity of the task demands

, 12/11/10,

Italics?


a teacher directed, stepwise, lab. And it is important that students develop the ability to read and

follow specific directions. Inquiry strategies however, should be incorporated into the science

classroom as much as is practical in order to promote scientific curiosity and questioning. “If

students perform even a few inquiry-based labs each year throughout their middle-school and

high-school careers, by graduation, they will be more self-confident, critical-thinking, people who

are unafraid of “doing science”” (Deters, 2005, p.1180). Students that are able to think critically

are being sought by secondary education officials as stated earlier in the reference to Georgia

Institute of Technology’s president Wayne Clough, Ph.D. (Clough, 2008).

Performance of inquiry tasks alone, are not enough to solidify science concepts. Inquiry

techniques can lead to increased levels of confusion if used implicitly. These tasks must be

accompanied by other metacognitive learning techniques such as, prediction, reflection, and

concept mapping. While research in recent decades advocates that the use of metacognitive

learning experiences in the classroom, leads to improved science literacy; science educators do

not have a widely accepted methodology for its implementation (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2003). In

fact, all too often teachers’ cultural beliefs about science instruction often conflict with the

utilization of inquiry. Many science teachers lack experience in performing science experiments

and have not been coached in the philosophy of science. Instead, these teachers view science as a

body of facts to be transplanted to students. This unfortunate circumstance is exacerbated by an

additional drive to convey the mandated standards efficiently, prior to examinations (Wallace &

Kang, 2004).

Deters (2005) presents several reasons why teachers may justify not implementing

inquiry methods. Teachers experience a perceived loss of control as the learning becomes student

centered. There is always a risk associated with taking students to the lab. This risk is heightened

when a set of steps to be followed has not been presented to the students. When students are

required to generate their procedure, much more class time is needed. To allow for student

, 12/11/10,

Naked quote


mistakes, as much as three times the normal class time may be required to complete an inquiry

lab. Mixed results, leading to student misconceptions, can be a negative side-effect. And finally,

grading these labs requires more time and effort. These disadvantages can be alleviated however.

Teachers can begin with guided inquiry and gradually increase the level of student direction in

the activities as both teacher and student confidence increases. Student developed procedures

must be signed off (approved for safe practice) and strict guidelines for safety in the laboratory

must be set up in advance. The level or depth of the inquiry can be manipulated to meet time

constraints. Post lab discussions in whole class settings can correct individual student

misconceptions. Grading may be facilitated with the use of rubrics, and these authentic

assessments may be able to replace more traditional assessments.

According to Hofstein and Lunetta (2003), it is difficult to assess the degree to which

science teachers utilize inquiry-based techniques. Studies have revealed that often teachers that

profess to use investigative, hands-on activities actually engage students in relatively low-level,

routine activities. Hofstein and Lunnetta (2003) further suggest that teachers often do not

perceive that the laboratory can be an effective means of instruction. They indicate that teachers

often do not realize the importance of the critical thinking associated with investigation in

addition to the content knowledge. As a result, rarely do teachers capitalize on the opportunity to

have students question the purpose and design of their investigation.

Students require guidance in transitioning to an environment where they are more

responsible for their own learning. For students accustomed to receiving direction, the effort, and

additional thinking involved with inquiry-based labs may initially be prohibitive. Research

recently reveals that students frequently respond positively to several aspects of the inquiry

experience. Students who that develop and revise their own steps for an investigation frequently

appreciate logical progression and organization of thought. Experiences with inquiry labs also

enrich and enhance student experiences with non-inquiry labs. Student responses expressed a


greater depth of understanding and an improved ability to explain mistakes or erroneous results.

And perhaps most rewardingly, students express increased interest, as a result of exposure to

inquiry (Deters, 2005).

According to Yerrick (2000), “promoting inquiry in lower track students is not common

practice” (2000,( p.809). Justifications for watering down the curriculum for these students are

frequently linked to disciplinary issues, as well as a perceived lack in ability. The focus of the

lesson often strictly limits student responses and rarely includes laboratory investigation. A large

percentage of these students can be categorized as economically disadvantaged. Potentially

lacking in an experience base to draw upon, these students would likely benefit the most from

lessons that incorporate practical work and argumentation. Currently, reform measures do not

address a resolution to this matter, and state and teacher focus remains on passing tests based on

rote memorization of facts. Yerrick (2000) was successful in achieving improved questioning

among his lower track students after instruction utilizing an argumentative discourse. He

maintains however, that teachers face a monumental task to scaffold the classroom discourse in

this manner. “Although promoting scientific discourse may run counter to normal lower track

science classroom discourse, it may just be imperative to do so if we are to make changes for all

students and live up to our reform visions” (Yerrick, 2000, p. 831). Perhaps as evidence is

gathered to support the utilization of inquiry methods for these students, justifications can be

made to fund the facilitation required to aid teachers in developing such scaffolding.

Focus Question Three: How effective were the implemented inquiry lessons; and what are the recommendations for improvements?

While utilization of inquiry techniques have been accepted as a necessary part of science

reform, these methods are not being implemented in many classrooms. In fact, secondary science

texts provide labs that focus too much attention on procedures, and too little attention to the

meaning associated with the activity (Gengarelly & Abrams, 2008). Abrahams and Millar (2008)

, 12/11/10,

Naked quote


corroborate this in their observations of science labs in the United Kingdom. They found that

most teachers over emphasize the procedure and present the lab activity as a means towards a

desired outcome. Teachers in the study did not allow time for students to develop their own

understandings or realize the important connections between observations, analysis of data and

the development of scientific evidence. Instead of fostering students’ construction of meaning,

they may have inadvertently squashed it.

Successful science reform must incorporate professional development and assistance for

science teachers. The scope of the training for science teachers ranges from technical training to

improve their expertise and confidence in the laboratory, to strategies for facilitating the social

and cognitive demands of inquiry activities, while managing a safe, effective, learning

environment. This reform has no simple solution, and will require years to develop. It is

disconcerting that, even now, there is no organized attempt to implement inquiry effectively in

science education. Crawford (2000) sheds some light on the complexity of the science educator’s

new roles in advocating inquiry. These new roles include the teacher as: motivator, diagnostician,

guide, innovator, experimenter, researcher, modeler, mentor, collaborator and learner.

According to Krajcik, McNeill, and Reiser (2007), science reform must combine a focus

on national, state or local standards in connection with a project-based pedagogy. They designate

four facets of design that incorporate the ideas suggested by the science standards into viable

frameworks: “(1) how to make these ideas compelling and understandable to learners, (2) what a

psychological or learning-based account of these ideas would entail, (3) what kinds of

experiences would help learners develop these ideas, and (4) what kinds of reasoning tasks would

represent the use of this knowledge”(Krajcik, McNeill & Reiser, 2007, p. 3). In their report, they

advocate that the standards be modified into learning goals that incorporate or guide pedagogical

designs for authentic practices. This top-down approach may be effective for implementing


inquiry by imbedding it into the content standard. It may also be viewed by instructors as

restrictive unless modifications can be applied to mold the activity to the needs of the classroom.

Wallace and Kang in 2004 suggested that policy makers at the school board level

incorporate rich and meaningful learning experiences into the curriculum standards. They also

advocated for inquiry to be emphasized in professional development. Given that there are

different levels of inquiry, Wallace and Kang (2004) maintain that further investigation is needed

to evaluate how modified versions of inquiry influence cognitive and affective aspects of

learning. In addition, studies are needed to assess the impact that inquiry has on motivation,

creativity, curiosity and understanding of the nature of science. These investigations should not

be carried out in isolation but in real “classrooms where teachers are currently implementing

inquiry within the constraints of school culture…” (Wallace & Kang, 2004, p. 959).

Expecting teachers to implement inquiry-based practical work in the face of the current

demand for passing test scores, particularly when those exams do not incorporate measures for

scientific thinking, process development or the nature of science, is quite unrealistic. Exceptional

schools, with a vision for academic excellence for their students that surpasses minimal

requirements, may attract teachers that choose to incorporate inquiry into their classrooms.

Hofstein and Lunetta (2003) indicate that it is naïve to expect teachers and students to shift their

practices towards inquiry in the face of such testing. They state that “The policy makers who

control the testing programs and those who prepare the tests must be part of more functional

efforts to improve the effectiveness of school science” (p. 44). Unfortunately, policy makers

rarely include those that have expertise in science education.

Post secondary education may represent the body of individuals with the most influential

impact on science reform. Increasingly, schools and policy-makers are seeking research-based

strategies in their attempts to implement education reform. Continued research on the effects of


inquiry-based practical work may convince policy makers of the need to emphasize its utilization.

Development and publication of these tasks make them available for use by teachers. The need

for professional development may be accomplished at the post secondary institutions for both

pre-service and in-service science teachers. In particular, the presentation of research-based

evidence that these methods would be successful in closing the gap between upper track students

and lower track students in attaining science literacy for all students is key. Such a study was

recently published by Wilson, Taylor, Kowalski and Carlson (2010) in which “commonplace

science instruction resulted in widened achievement gaps by race, whereas the inquiry-based

instruction mitigated the expansion of existing gaps” (p. 293).


CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Program Evaluation Research Design

This study is designed to assess the efficacy of inquiry-based practical work (labs or lab-

related activities) on student achievement or science literacy. This type of work has long been

associated with science education, yet statistical evidence of its effectiveness is limited. This is

supported in the work of Elliott, Stewart and Lagowski (2008), who asserted that little direct

evidence exists to support that chemistry students’ learning is improved by performing labs.

Evaluation research and action research in the classroom is called for to collect data to

support or refute the impact of the constructivist pedagogy involving practical work for all

science fields. In 1992, Kember & Gow of Hong Kong Polytechnic, conclude that “ …the

effectiveness of action research is best judged by its effect on student learning since the goal of

the exercise is to improve the quality of student learning, by modifying teaching practices…” (p.

309). Wallace and Kang (2004), expressed the need for such research in the classroom, to identify

the effects of inquiry on student’ achievement in science.

The following sections describe the parameters of an investigation into the benefits of

inquiry-based practical work in the secondary physical science classroom.

Setting

The study was carried out in a public, rural, high school in west central Georgia. Fifty to

sixty percent of the student body qualifies for free and reduced lunch (FRL). According to 2006

Census information, the area is 47.5% white, 48.3% black, 1.4% Aasian and 2.2% other. Families

in the area (non-single residences) are as high as 64.9%. This location was chosen since it is my

employment location and because the school values research based methods that improve interest,

, 12/11/10,

Font


engagement and student achievement. Permission for the study was secured from the principal,

the cooperating college and the local school system. Authorization for the study was received by

the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Sample/Subjects/ Participants

The test sample included all consenting, tenth grade, students enrolled in physical

science. These subjects were divided into two groups. For the control group, two teachers with a

total of six classes (approximately 130 students) were asked to administer pre and post

assessments but were not asked to modify their current teaching methods in any way. Their

methods could be described as traditional teacher centered approaches with only occasional lab

activities. It may be interesting to note that within the control group, teacher number one taught

two classes of physical science students, and teacher number two taught four physical science

classes.

The experimental group was instructed by the remaining two science teachers involved in

this study and consisted of seven classes or roughly 150 students. Within the test group, teacher

number three taught six of the seven classes of students, while teacher number four taught only

one of the test groups. This design suggests a degree of consistency within the teaching of the test

group.

These students are required to take physical science classes and pass state developed exit

exams including questions in the domain of physical science. This study is intended to reveal

methods of instruction that benefit both students and teachers in achieving academic success for

all students.

Procedures and Data Collection Methods


The investigation was designed to measure the impact of hands on activities implemented

during a three week unit of electricity and magnetism for tenth grade physical science students.

Emphasis was also placed on students’ ability to articulate their own understanding and

questioning throughout the unit. In some cases students designed the next step in their learning

process. An overview of the study may be viewed in the following table.


Table 3.1. Data Shell

Focus Question Literature Sources

Type of Method and Data

How these data are analyzed

Why these data provide valid data

Rationale Strengths/Weaknesses

Can Students’ ability to develop better scientific questions be improved through the use of experiential inquiry techniques?

Wilson (2010)Hofstein (2005)Reigosa (2007)Middlecamp(2005)Yerrick (2000)GaDOE

Method:Pre/Post Test assessmet

Rubric scoring of student question

Data:Ordinal

QuantitativeDescriptive and inferential Statistics

Dependent and Independent T-tests

Chi-SquareCronbach’s Alpha

Type of Validity:

Content

Quantitative:Determine if there are significant differences

Qualitative:Look for categorical and repeating data

ValidityReliabilityDependabilityBias

How receptive are teachers and students to inquiry-based practical work?

Hofstein(2003)Wallace(2004)Deters(2005)Prins(2008)

Method:Survey

Data:Ordinal and interval

Quantitative

Descriptive and inferential Statistics

Chi-SquareCronbach’s Alpha

Independent T-Test after data is aggregated

Type of Validity:

ConstructPredictive




How effective were the implemented inquiry lessons; and what are the recommendations for improvements?

Gengarelly(2008)Abraharns(2008)Krajcik(2007)Elliot (2008)

Method:Interview

Data:qualitative

Qualitative

Coded for themes

Type of Validity:

Constuct




Tenth grade students enrolled in physical science were divided into control and

experimental groups. Data was collected from students with three instruments. Students from all

groups answered multiple choice questions indicative of those asked on state exit exams.

Secondly, students were asked to generate scientific questions in response to a prompt. The rubric

generated for the purpose of scoring these questions may be found in the following table:


Table 3.2 Question Assessment Rubric

Assessment Rubric to Evaluate Scientific Questions

CRITERION LOW (1 point) MEDIUM (2 points) HIGH (3 points)

Complexity

At least one parameter from the prompt is included

Two parameters from the prompt are

included

More than two parameters from the prompt are included

Phrasing

Question is vague and presents no

followable direction

Question is clear and specific

Question is well written and suggests

follow up investigation

Use of scientificvocabulary

No evidence of science vocabulary is

given or is used incorrectly.

One to two scientific vocabulary terms are

used correctly

Two or more scientific vocabulary

terms are used correctly

Relating toexperimentation

Question suggests little or no knowledge

of scientific investigation

Question suggests moderate level of

knowledge of scientific

investigation

Question suggests a high level of

knowledge of scientific investigation

Number of Questions One Two Three or more

Content and question development scores were collected in pre-test and post-test format.

Tests between the means of different groups were used to establish that the two groups of

students were comparable. Tests between the means of related groups were used to examine the

gains in student learning. Tests between the means of different groups were again used to

determine if students engaged in the inquiry-based practical work had significantly different

learning gains as measured with the content and question generation tests. The third instrument

was a student survey designed to obtain student feedback and perceptions about learning

activities. Survey data were collected after the unit was completed. The Student Survey is located


in Appendix B. Survey data was examined with item analysis statistics and then aggregated for

comparison with tests between different groups.

The lessons for the experimental group of students were designed to incorporate hands

on lab activities requiring them to work in collaborative groups. The teachers modeled and

emphasized scientific questioning as an important part of the lesson format. Consideration was

given to the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) 5E (engage, explore, explain,

evaluate and elaborate) instructional model (Bybee, et al, 2006), when designing the inquiry-

based unit.

All twelve teachers in the science department were surveyed to gather information

regarding their use and understanding of inquiry-based practical work in science lessons. All of

the science teachers were surveyed whether or not they were involved in the test. These

quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The survey utilized a

Lickert scale and these data were examined with Chi-Square and Cronbach’s Alpha analyses.

Finally, interviews were carried out with the teachers involved in the implementation of

inquiry-based lessons, and with the school principal. These qualitative data were analyzed and

coded for themes. A copy of the questions may be found in Appendix D. Of particular interest,

these questions were designed to uncover the viability of an increased use of inquiry-based

practical work among teachers and students. Also of interest: whether the perceptions of these

individuals were positive, negative or indifferent regarding its benefit to students’ science

education. Finally, regardless of viability and perceptions, what would be the likelihood that such

a school improvement program would be implemented in the current political environment.

, 12/11/10,

Save for CH 3 part 6 analysis

, 12/11/10,

Save for CH 3 part 6 analysis

, 12/11/10,

List all authors if 1st time used


APPENDIX A

Question Prompt #1

Please read the following prompt. Following the prompt please construct a scientific question about the prompt.

One night while playing late at a night club, this lead guitarist broke a String. He was frustrated when he found only acoustical guitar strings made of nylon in his repair kit instead of steel guitar strings for his electric guitar. Frustrated that he had brought the wrong kit and knowing that he had to play another hour before closing, he tried to replace the steel string with the acoustical string he had brought. After all, it was only going to be an hour and these strings worked in his other guitar at home. He found that the new string made no noise that could be heard through his amplifier and speaker. He was forced to quit for the evening as no one else in the band had any spare strings either.

This event bothered him as he thought more about it. He wondered how it could be that the string would act the same on both guitars but only one of them could be heard with an amplifier. He even thought that maybe a great invention would be a nylon acoustical string that could be used in an electric guitar with an amplifier.

You are a scientist. This friend comes to you to ask why the two strings act so differently in the electric guitar. He also wants to know about his invention of a string that can perform in both places.


Question Prompt #2

Please read the following prompt. Following the prompt please construct a scientific question about the prompt.

A new classroom has been finished and is responsible for some strange events. Everyone likes the classroom but no one knows exactly what is wrong.

The classroom has been designed with new desks, lab benches, carpeting, curtains, phones, PA systems, computers, and lab equipment. It has been noted that people get electric shocks when using the pencil sharpener, door knobs and latches, and gas jets. Candy wrappers and folders are sticking to the desks and blackboard. The strangest events are happening with the computer. The computer that the teacher had at home for the summer is now freezing up for no apparent reason. Computer disks have been erased while simply sitting on the teacher’s desk. Several of the students’ lab write-ups have disappeared from the information stored on computer disks and this is becoming a problem in grading. You are a scientist who lives next door to the school and are called upon by the teacher to fix the problem. Everyone likes the new classroom but would like things to be normal.


APPENDIX B

STUDENT SURVEY

Please read each of the following statements and indicate your level of agreement by circling the appropriate number. Please answer each question. After completing these questions, please return this paper to your teacher. Thank you.

1. I like the idea of completing laboratory activities.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

2. I am comfortable with completing laboratory activities.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

3. I enjoy performing laboratory activities.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

4. I am successful in completing laboratory activities.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

5. I work hard at completing laboratory activities.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

6. I learn a great deal by doing laboratory activities.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

7. I feel as though my grade on laboratory work reflects accurately what I know.

Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

8. I read and gather information from different sources before completing laboratory activities.



9. I choose with whom I wish to work when completing laboratory activities.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

10. I control the work I do on laboratory activities.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

11. I believe the laboratory activities are challenging.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

12. Performing laboratory activities makes me more curious about science.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

13. The ability to move about is something I like.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

14. I have difficulty connecting the laboratory activities with what I am supposed to learn.


15. The laboratory activities make learning fun for me.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

16. Undertaking the laboratory activities allows me to succeed.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

17. Successfully completing the laboratory activities does not require much effort.


18. Working on these laboratory activities does not help me learn.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

19. The laboratory activity is confusing for me.



20. I read and gather information from different sources prior to laboratory activities.


21. Working on the laboratory activities allows me to choose a partner.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

22. The laboratory activities allow me to be in charge of what I do.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

23. Completing the laboratory activities does not challenge me.Always Frequently Occasionally SeldomNever

24. I learn more from note-taking and work in the classroom than I learn performing laboratory activities.


Please return this paper to your teacher. Thank you.


APPENDIX C

TEACHER SURVEY

Please read each of the following statements and indicate your level of agreement or disagreement by circling the appropriate number or description. All questions should be answered. After completing these questions, please return this paper to your teacher.

1. How often do I include labs or lab activities in my lessons? (choose one)Weekly monthly each semester each year never

2. Do your lab activities require students to design their own research protocol?Never seldom occasionally frequentlyalways

3. Do your lab activities require students to formulate questions?Never seldom occasionally frequentlyalways

4. Do your lab activities require students to collect, interpret and report data?Never seldom occasionally frequentlyalways

5. I like planning for and monitoring laboratory activities.Never seldom occasionally frequentlyalways

6. I feel comfortable planning for and monitoring laboratory activities.Never seldom occasionally frequently always

7. I enjoy planning for and monitoring laboratory activities.Never seldom occasionally frequentlyalways

8. I think students learn more content when performing laboratory activities.Never seldom occasionally frequentlyalways


9. I think students learn more about science concepts when completing laboratory activities.Never seldom occasionally frequentlyalways

10.I think laboratory activities may enhance learning but are a poor replacement for classroom lessons (text, notes and lecture) when mastering content standards. Never seldom occasionally

frequently always

11.I would like to increase the number of laboratory activities that I include in my lesson plans.Never seldom occasionally frequentlyalways

12.I feel as though professional development in this area and/or assistance in developing activities, would prompt me to increase my usage of laboratory

activities in my lessons.

Never seldom occasionally frequentlyalways

13. If you do not utilize as many laboratory activities as you would like, please identify some parameters for this accord: (mark all that apply)

___not enough time (planning)

___not enough time (pacing guide)

___too risky (worried about students hurting themselves)

___diminished level of classroom management in lab atmosphere

___no not feel comfortable in the lab environment

___lack of availability of facilities

___lack of supplies

___lack of equipment

___other__________________________________


14. If you don’t think you wish to include laboratory activities in your lessons please identify the

reasons. List all that apply.

___labs don’t have a significant impact on learning content

___labs are not successful with all students

___there is too much risk involved in allowing students to perform labs

___students only consider labs as play time

___pacing will never allow enough time

___other

15. If you utilize labs, or wish to increase your usage of labs to convey science content and

concepts what are some advantages? (list all that apply)

___students are more engaged when they work in small groups

___students are more engaged when they have to move around

___students learn more content when they perform labs

___students understand the process of science when they perform labs

___students’ learning during activities such as labs are more likely to be sustainable

___students learn more when they are “doing science”

___other________________________________________

16. I think labs would be more effective if______________________________


APPENDIX E

Interview Script

1. What do you remember as the most important part of your education?(perhaps that which has remained with you the longest or served you best)

2. What would you change about your own education?

3. In your opinion, what place does practical work (lab activities)have in science education?

4. Describe what you perceive as essential to “sustainable” learning/teaching.

5. Would you describe practical work as necessary, enhancing or essential to science education?

6. Describe the ideally prepared college freshman particularly in terms of the field of science.

7. Describe the ideally prepared vocational student.

8. In your professional opinion, how likely is it, that our school would pursue an increase in practical work (including professional development) as an avenue for improvement in science instruction. Why or Why not?


References

Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does Practical Work Really Work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education. 30, 1945-1969. doi:10.1080/09500690701749305

Brainard, Jeffery, (2007). 50 years after Sputnik. America Sees Itself in Another Science Race. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54, Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost

Bybee, R.W., Taylor, A.T., Gardner, A., Scotter, P.V., Powell, J.C., Westbrook, A., Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins, Effectiveness, and Applications. Retrieved from http://www.bscs.org

Chin, C. (2007). Teacher Questioning in Science Classrooms: Approaches that Stimulate Productive Thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 815-843. doi:10.1002/tea.20171

Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ Questions and Discursive Interaction: Their Impact on Argumentation During Collaborative Group Discussions in Science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 47, 883-908. doi:10.1002/tea.20385

Clough, G. Wayne, (2008). Wanted: Well Rounded Students Who Can Think. School Adminsitrators, 65, 28-33. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost

Cordova, France A., (2006). Losing sleep over Student Success? The Presidency, 14-21. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost.

Crawford, C.A. (2000). Embracing the Essence of Inquiry: New Roles for Science Teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost.

Deters, K.M. (2005). Student Opinions Regarding Inquiry-Based Labs, Journal of Chemical Education, 82(8), 1178-1180.

Georgia Department of Education. (2010, June). Georgia Performance Standards. Retrieved from http:/www.georgiastandards.org


Gengarelly, L.M., & Abrams, E.D. (2009) Closing the Gap: Inquiry in Research and the Secondary Science Classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 74-84. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9134-2

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V.N. (2003) The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century. Science Education, 88, 28-54. doi:10.1002/sce.10106

Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing Students ‘ Ability to Ask More Questions Resulting from Inquiry-Type Chemistry Laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 791-806. doi:10.1002/tea.20072

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1992). Action Research as a form of staff development in higher education. Higher Education, 23, 297-310. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost.

Krajcik, J., McNeill, K.L., & Reiser, B.J. (2007). Learning-Goals-Driven Design Model: Developing Curriculum Materials That Align With National Standards and Incorporate Project-based Pedagogy. Science Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/sce.20240

LaGrange College Education Department (2007). The Conceptual Framework. LaGrange, Georgia: LaGrange College

Middlecamp, C.H., & Nickel, A.L. (2005). Doing Science and Asking Questions II: An Exercise That Generates Questions. Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 1181-1186. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost.

Olivera, A.W. (2010). Improving Teacher Questioning in Science Inquiry Discussions Through Professional Development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 422-453. doi:10.1002/tea.20345

Plutarch. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved November 27, 2010, from BrainyQuote.com Website: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotew/quotew/p/plutarch161334.html

Prins, G.T., Bulte, A.M W., van Driel, J.H., & Pilot, A. (2008). Selection of Authentic Modeling Practices as Contexts for Chemistry Education. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1867-1890. doi:10.1080/09500690701581823

Reigosa, C., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P. (2007). Scaffolded Problem-solving in the Physics and Chemistry Laboratory: Difficulties hindering students’ assumption of responsibility. International Journal of Science, 29, 307-329.doi:10.1080/09500690600702454


Sadeh, I, & Zion, M. (2009). The Development of Dynamic Inquiry Performances within an Open Inquiry Setting: A Comparison to Guided Inquiry Setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1137-1160. doi:10.1002/tea.20310

Saunders, L.S. (1992). The Constructivist Perspective: Implications and Teaching Strategies for Science. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 136-141. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wallace, C.S., & Kang, N.H. (2004). An Investigation of Experienced Science Teachers’ Beliefs About Inquiry: An Examination of Competing Belief Sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 936-960. doi:10.1002/tea.20032

Wilson, C.D., Taylor, J.A., Kowalski, S.M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The Relative Effects and Equity of Inquiry-Based and Commonplace Science Teaching on Students’ Knowledge, Reasoning, and Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 276-301. doi:10.1002/tea.20329

Yerrick, R.K. (2000). Lower Track Science Students’ Argumentation and Open Inquiry Instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807-838.

van Zee, E.H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and Teacher Questioning during Conversations about Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 159-190.

aligning science inquiry - lagrange collegehome.lagrange.edu/educate/advanced programs/eds...

Documents